1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates generally to sportboard boot binding and foot-retaining mechanisms. More particularly, the present application involves a type of binding system that allows rotational movement of a rider's feet during operation with improved ergonomics.
2. Prior Art
Prior Art—General
The use of sportboards (a.k.a. sportingboards, sport-boards) such as snowboards, wakeboards, kiteboards, air-boards, sand-boards, and mountain-boards, etc., has become more popular in recent years. Snowboarding for example, has become a very well developed sport having a large number of enthusiasts. This increase in popularity caused it to become part of the Olympic Games in 1998. Such popularity also has led to the rise of numerous manufacturers and the availability of well developed product lines.
There are many types of sportboards and snowboards. However, snowboard types can be classified roughly into two types: the carving (a.k.a. race) and the more common “symmetrical” (a.k.a. freeride and freestyle) types. There are differences between the freeride and freestyle types. The freestyle type boards are generally more dimensionally symmetrical, such as the twin tip freestyle board. The carving board is essentially non-symmetrical and has one upwardly curved end. Thus the carving board is designed to travel primarily in one direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the board. An example of a carving board is the Giant Slalom (GS) type board. Symmetrical boards have similarly shaped ends, i.e., both ends are upwardly curved. Thus the symmetrical board is therefore better suited to reverse direction of travel. An example of symmetrical type boards are those that are used in all mountain and half-pipe events.
Prior Art—Fixed (Non-Rotating) Bindings
Most foot or boot bindings currently in use are ‘fixed’, i.e., do not change rotational orientation relative to the snowboard readily during riding. The rotational orientation of the foot and binding is generally in reference to a virtual (a.k.a. imaginary) axis located essentially through the center of a rider's foot (or binding) that is perpendicular to the bottom surface of the sportboard. Yet, for different events, snowboard riders have different favored angular positions of their feet relative to the longitudinal axis of the snowboard. Such positions enable riders to accommodate different snow conditions or snowboarding styles. Some preferred riding positions have toes pointed more toward the side of the board, some toward an end (curved tip) of the board. For instance, during speed runs such as the Giant Slalom, the typical snowboarder orients the toes of his or her feet more toward the direction of travel. Thus, the toes of the rider's feet are more in line with the longitudinal axis of the snowboard. This works well since the GS boards are typically operated in only one direction.
For other riding such as freestyle and half-pipe events, the desired toe angle is oriented more perpendicular to the board's longitudinal axis. This enables a rider to ride a snowboard oriented with either end of the sportboard pointed in the direction of travel. However, essentially every rider has a preferred foot stance relative to an end of a snowboard most favored for the direction of travel. The preferred foot stance is cooperative commensurate with the favored direction of travel. Thus, the toes of the leading foot (relative to direction of travel) of a rider are more forward oriented toward the favored direction of travel. These predominant riding positions are commonly referred to as “regular” or “goofy.”
This latter type of riding using a more symmetrically curved snowboard has become very popular. Yet, an inherent flaw exists with riding such sportboards using the typical fixed (non-rotating) bindings. The favored stance (goofy or regular) of a rider is really that with which the rider intrinsically has more skill. This skill is reinforced since most riding is, done with the preferred board end (tip) pointed toward the direction of travel. However, when riding a symmetrical board backward (a.k.a. fakie or switchstance) with fixed bindings, the rider typically is compromised in two ways:                a) the rider's toes (and therefore body posture) are oriented away from (or at least less-toward) the ‘backwards’ direction of travel, and,        b) the rider also has less skill in her or his less-preferred direction of travel.Prior Art—Rotatable Bindings        
It can be further argued that the more perpendicularly oriented (common, fixed) foot stance is intrinsically compromised for the favored direction of travel. Ideally, the feet should be angled more toward the direction of travel, as with a GS type board. Thus, the feet should be able to be oriented more toward the ends of the symmetrical board. Yet other, different sportboard maneuvers would have better results with the rider's feet oriented within the range between end positions. Certain advances have been made to create bindings to solve this problem. A variety of rotatable bindings that more easily rotate about a vertical axis (essentially perpendicular to the sportboard) and lock into fixed, user selectable positions are known. In general, these are an improvement over bindings requiring disassembly to make an adjustment, but do not address the problem well. However, rotatable bindings that are free to continuously rotate while riding are a further, more recent advancement. Bindings that freely rotate during operation are of more particular interest regarding this present application. Additionally of interest are those developments in foot and boot bindings that address ergonomic concerns and human factors for sportboards.
Prior Art—Boot Designs
In general, attempts have been made to address the difficulties of providing a comfortable connection between the human foot and leg to a sportboard. The connection has to have two seemingly conflicting qualities. 1) Soft padding is required for foot and leg comfort, and, 2) Rigidity is necessary for ankle support and to impart control forces to direct the sportboard. GS type boots are similar to ski boots with a rigid outer shell and soft liner, providing substantial ankle support. These boots typically have a hinge type mechanism that allows the ankle limited flexure. This mechanism basically enables the lower leg to pivot essentially toward and away from the toes about the ankle joint. Since the GS type board is more dedicated to one direction of travel, it works well with a more rigid boot.
Snowboard boots used with symmetrical type boards most often do not have a hard plastic shell. These “soft boots” used are akin to a snow pack boot, yet are more rigid. Boots used with symmetrical boards are required to provide lower leg support yet be flexible. This support is required to control the board as well as limit rider fatigue. Riders on symmetrical boards do reverse direction of travel, and often perform many trick maneuvers. Riders also perform maneuvers in a half-pipe or in terrain parks that have obstacles. Such riding requires changing body posture as well as lower leg positions. Often such a rider rotates his or her torso (and therefore her or his hips) about a roughly vertical axis throughout a riding session. In doing so, a symmetrical board rider alternates between facing somewhat toward each of the opposite ends of the sportboard. The rider's lower legs accommodate such movement as much as possible. Thus, soft boots used with symmetrical type boards need to provide support, have flexibility, and be comfortable. Additionally, various binding and sportboard designs have attempted to address these and other human-sportboard ergonomic challenges.
Prior Art—Ergonomics & Human Factors
Regardless of foot positional preference relative to the ends of the snowboard, essentially all riders share a common trait. The typical snowboarders stance places foot centers approx. shoulder width apart. This is done for stability and is comparable in some ways to that of participants in wrestling, martial arts, baseball, etc. Yet, to engage and follow the typical flat binding on an essentially flat sportboard, the feet and/or boot bottoms are tilted with respect to the lower leg. This is a less than optimal result of employing a wider stance. Since soft type boots have some ankle support, yet are somewhat flexible, a comfort level is reached. But the leg is a structural unit of the human skeleton under load. It is arguably more stable, comfortable, and stronger-if the foot bottom remains essentially perpendicular to an axis that passes through the central foot region and hip joint of the same leg. The dynamics of a rider's skeletal system utilizing free foot rotation while riding a sportboard make this difficult to achieve.
In particular, the twisting of the torso with hips creates a challenge in maintaining the bottom of a rider's foot essentially perpendicular to the respective axis formed by the central foot region to hip joint. Evidently, the particulars of this need have not been accurately recognized in the prior art. The dynamics of a rider's orthopedic structure will be further addressed subsequently in both the drawings and the text of this present application. Some prior art designs have attempted to address the ergonomics of foot and/or leg to sportboard relationship. Nevertheless, up until now, no designs have successfully addressed both of the aforementioned significant needs. That is, the need to: 1) allow a rider to rotate his or her feet while riding, and also, 2) maintain the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the axes that pass through the respective central foot regions and hip joints. In short, the prior art that is of greater interest to this present application is:                Sportboard bindings that are free to rotate about an essentially vertical axis, and,        Ergonomic improvements in the leg-to-foot-to-sportboard connection.Prior Art—Patents & Patent Application Publications        
U.S. Pat. No. 5,971,419 to M. L. Knapschafer introduces a binding system that uses hard shell type boots that are free to pivot via a horizontal pin on a free style snowboard. The horizontal pin runs basically from under the heel portion of the boot to the toe portion of the boot. By pivoting about a horizontal axis, the boots are free to swivel through a side to side arc in respective vertical planes. The support from a more rigid boot is utilized for ankle stability. The required lower leg flexibility is thus provided via the axis of the horizontal pin. However, that particular flexibility is limited to the (respective) aforementioned vertical planes. Flexibility outside of that plane is limited to that which is typical of hard shell boots. Additionally, the binding embodiment(s) disclosed are not free to rotate about a vertical axis while riding. Thus, the benefits of operating a sportboard having continuously-variable-rotation bindings are not obtained.
If redesigned to have such rotational capability, it would seem the embodiment(s) disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,971,419/Knapschafer would improve in performance. However, movement is restricted by the hard shell boot in the plane established by the leg and the horizontal pin. This rigidity is used to control the sportboard via tilting about the longitudinal axis of the board. This is done essentially by a rider shifting her or his weight and by tilting the leg(s) frontward or backward. Yet this designed in restriction of ankle movement in the plane shared by the leg & horizontal pin becomes more problematic if used in rotating binding designs. As mentioned earlier, there is a need to maintain a rider's foot relatively normal to the respective central foot region-hip axis. This also is not satisfied. Thus, the embodiment(s) disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,971,419/Knapschafer does (do) not address the aforementioned needs, even if it were made to be dynamic.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,040 to D. C. Buzbee introduces a binding system that allows a rider to rotate her or his feet while riding. The embodiment(s) disclosed have several advantages working for it (them). The design is simple, which is generally good from the standpoint of manufacturability and reliability. It is a step-in binding, which affords convenience to the rider. It does allow foot rotation for the rider during usage, albeit such rotation is limited to ‘riding when not turning’. From the text regarding FIG. 5 of the U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,040 (column 6, line 52):                “Friction occurs between the bottom of boot 20 and the upper surface of snowboard 18. Friction is also created by the interlocking of radial ridges 28 on catch structure flanges 27 and binding base flanges 23. This resists rotation movement of the feet and enables the snowboarder to control the snowboard. When the snowboarder is standing upright, e.g. in the lift line or traveling straight, the boot may be raised just enough from the snowboard to allow the rotation of the foot.”        
Thus, if riding down a hill in continuous ‘S’ turns, the rider can change foot positions essentially at the ‘inflection points’ (transition zones) between turns. So this binding is not continuously free to rotate during usage. This deprives the operator of the ability to execute a whole class of maneuvers that require freedom to rotate a rider's feet continuously, at will.
It can also be argued that, as a step-in binding, the rigidity afforded by the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,040/Buzbee is less than high back type binding systems. It has been argued in general that, compared to ‘external frame’ type systems, i.e., the typical high back binding, ‘internally structured’ type step-in systems afford a less rigid connection to a snowboard. The embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,040 also intrinsically have a tolerance zone (a.k.a. ‘play’) to clear the interlocking of radial ridges 28 of the flanges. Thus, the response of the sport board is compromised by the tolerance, even if the necessary support was otherwise provided by the boots. Additionally, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,022,040 does (do) not maintain the feet bottoms relatively normal to the respective axes passing through the hips and central foot regions throughout the range of operation.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229 to J. Bourdeau introduces a freeride or freestyle boot with reinforcing structural elements. The boot combines certain support properties of hard shell boots with those of soft shell boots, albeit in a unique way. The language in the Abstract of U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229 includes:                “a relatively flexible upper, mainly forming the outer portion of the boot connected to the sole, a rigid shell at least partially covering the sole and extending upwardly at the rear of the boot, at the level of the heel, and a rigid back portion journalled on the shell and extending it upwardly.”        
The journalled feature establishes an axis, which combined with physical properties and geometry, allows a rider's lower legs to pivot somewhat forward and backward, but also somewhat toward and away from each other. This journalled feature(s) is located near the respective ankle joint(s) of the boot. Thus, U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229/Bourdeau provides support and, as does 5,971,419/Knapschafer, means to pivot. However, the ‘side to side’ axes are located differently: U.S. Pat. No. 5,971,419/Knapschafer is below the foot of the rider; U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229/Bourdeau is essentially at the ankle. The ‘fore to aft’ (toward and away from toes) axis of both are essentially located at the ankle. This is evident from the application of U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229, and typical for hard shell boot construction. Therefore, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229 may provide other benefits but does (do) not address the two aforementioned challenges:                It does not provide continuously variable foot rotation about a vertical axis, and,        Does not maintain the bottom of the rider's foot essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint.        
U.S. Pat. No. 6,257,614 B1 to J. Duggan (current applicant) provides a foot binding system that allows dynamic foot rotation essentially about respective vertical axes while riding the sportboard. A rider's feet are free to rotate cooperatively; the foot bindings are connected by a means that insures simultaneous rotation. This makes available the advantages of riding goofy then switching to regular and all positions in between. By establishing cooperative positioning, the burden of coordinating the rotational positions of both feet relative to each other and the sportboard is removed. The sportboard is thus easier to control while riding at higher speeds, over rough terrain, and when executing other maneuvers. For example, the bindings can be continuously rotated throughout turns, straight travel, while airborne, etc. However, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,257,614 B1/Duggan can also be further improved with regard to the foot bottom position relative to the respective central foot region-hip axis. This will become evident with a review of the embodiments introduced as the subject of this present application.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,296,258 B2 to M. T. Higgins & R. J. Caputo introduces a binding system that has shock absorbing properties produced via springs. The embodiment(s) disclosed also allow slight rotation of a rider's foot about an axis or axes that are vertical or nearly vertical while riding. The binding system introduced by U.S. Pat. No. 6,296,258 B2/Higgins & Caputo also allows the bottom of a rider's foot to tilt or become essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint. However, the freedom of foot rotation about a vertical (or nearly vertical) axis is restricted to a very small arc sector. This sector is limited by displacement of the springs used. Put differently, the bindings do not enable a rider to substantially change his or her initial foot positions or posture while riding. Additionally, although the bottoms of a rider's feet are able to tilt away from being parallel to the top of the snowboard, springs resist this movement. Thus, the springs allow movement, but are biased toward restoring the bindings (and therefore a rider's feet) to the unloaded position, which is essentially parallel to the top planar surface of the snowboard. So, U.S. Pat. No. 6,296,258 B2 does not allow a significantly large sector of foot rotation while riding. Additionally, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,296,258 B2 does (do) not provide means to maintain the foot bottom essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,382,658 B1 and 6,394,483 B2, both to D. P. Stubblefield disclose a snowboard or ski having a unique shape under the regions to which a rider's feet attach. Certain embodiment(s) disclosed have thicker cross sectional areas around the binding/foot regions. This is done to change the flexural behavior of the board or ski under load, particularly while turning. From the text of 6,382,658 B1 Col. 16, line 55:                “As in the first and second preferred embodiments, core 38 (not shown) of dual-cambered snowboard 10” is thinnest in the areas of nose 12 and tail 14, thinner in center section 30, and thickest under the rider's feed in front mounting zone 24 and rear mounting zone 28.”        
If, in some embodiments, the surfaces for mounting the bindings were to be tilted inward toward the rider, and if a binding system that was free to rotate were attached, certain ergonomic benefits would be obtained, albeit in part. What then might be obtained is the orienting of the feet such that each respective foot bottom is closer to being perpendicular to the axis formed by the companion central foot region and hip joint. However, if by chance (or even design) the angular tilt is coplanar (or parallel to) a desired foot position, and a binding system is used that allows free rotation, such a correct alignment would only be true for a single position and not the full sector of rotation. This is true due to the dynamics of a rider's skeletal system for free foot rotation while riding a sportboard. In particular, the twisting of the torso and hips creates a challenge in maintaining the bottoms of the rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the respective central foot region-hip axes. The technology introduce by U.S. Pat. No. 6,382,658 B1 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,394,483 B2 is directed to a different problem and does not provide means to maintain the foot bottom essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint
U.S. Pat. No. 6,491,310 B1 to A. Work discloses a swiveling binding system that allows both feet of a rider to rotate freely about essentially vertical, respective axes. The design has the advantage of being simple, since the binding mounts operate independently of each other. Thus, the rider is required to maintain alignment of his or her feet while operating. Arguably, compared to U.S. Pat. No. 6,257,614 B1/Duggan, control is more difficult for riders that are less expert or while riding at higher speeds and/or over rougher terrain. However, this depends upon other factors, such as, how freely the binding mounts of U.S. Pat. No. 6,491,310 B1/Work rotate, etc. Thus, it may become a matter of preference for more skilled riders. However, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,491,310 B1 can still be improved since it (they) also does (do) not maintain the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the respective central foot region-hip axes.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,499,758 B1 to L. Fournier discloses a sportsboard having an ergonomic upper surface. According to the text of U.S. Pat. No. 6,499,758 (Abstract) the surface includes:                “at least one upwardly angled portion with respect to a center of the sportsboard adapted to contact the extremities of a rider, e.g., the feet boots and/or bindings.”        
Such geometric surfaces are likely an improvement to the interface of a rider with the sportsboard, albeit designed for non-rotating binding systems. As mentioned with regard to U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,382,658 B1 and 6,394,483 B2 to Stubblefield, if 6,499,758 B1 to L. Fournier is used with a binding system that allows free rotation, such an ergonomically correct alignment of extremities occurs for essentially a single position and not the full sector of rotation. Thus, the technology of U.S. Pat. No. 6,499,758 B1/Fournier is an ergonomic improvement that is for essentially static foot, boot, or binding contact and is not designed to work for freely rotating bindings.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,841 B1 to H. Kessler et al discloses a spacer for snowboards that has ergonomic and functional advantages. The functional advantages relate essentially to improving the force transmission between a rider's heels and toes and the snowboard. Additionally, by elevating the rider's heels and toes, the ends of the boot do not drag in the snow while turning. This advantage is identified in other US patents, such as U.S. Pat. No. 6,296,258 B2/Higgins & Caputo, listed earlier. The ergonomic advantage of U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,841 B1/Kessler (et al) is obtained via an angular tilt of the spacer: Such an angular tilt orients the bottom planar surface of the rider's foot more normal to the axis passing through the respective central foot region and hip joint. However, this is designed for a non-rotating binding system, with static boot or binding contact with the topmost outer portions of the spacer. Yet, if embodiment(s) of the spacer that have the tilt feature, were able to be used with bindings that freely rotate, the ergonomic advantage would occur only at essentially one point on the sector of rotation. Thus, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,841 B1 does (do) not maintain the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the respective central foot region-hip axes.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,663,118 B1 to T. Otsuji et al introduces a “Snowboard Interface With An Upper Portion That Translates And Rotates Relative To A Lower Portion”. The snowboard interface item introduced is essentially a boot with structural elements and pivoting means. The pivoting means is located in a region relatively close to the portion of the boot enclosing the rider's ankle. The pivoting/guiding action is essentially about a horizontal axis oriented in a direction substantially parallel to the main heel to toe axis of the foot. Thus, pivoting/guidance for the lower leg occurs in a vertical plane essentially normal to that horizontal axis. This allows a rider's lower legs to move inward, towards and away from each other. The embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,663,118 B1/Otsuji (et al) operate in a manner not identical to, but similar to, U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,229/Bourdeau. The embodiments of both technologies utilize a mechanism that pivots about an axis located near the rider's ankle joint. Both the Bordeau and Otsuji (et al) technologies also essentially maintain the foot bottoms parallel to the surface of the snowboard or sportboard. Thus, the technology of U.S. Pat. No. 6,663,118 B1/Otsuji also:                Does not provide continuously variable foot rotation about a vertical axis, and,        Does not maintain the bottom of the foot essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint.        
U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2 to C. Cole, III et al introduces a binding base that freely rotates about a vertical axis shown perpendicular to a sportboard (identified as “Y” in FIG. 3 of that document).
In a first embodiment(s) disclosed, U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2/Cole, III (et al) functions much like that of U.S. Pat. No. 6,491,310 B1/Work. However, in a second embodiment of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2 also provided is a different freedom of movement by introducing the use of “hinged assemblies”, shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 of that document. A “Z” axis is identified in U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2 as being essentially collinear with the longitudinal axis of the sportboard, and an “X” axis is shown normal to the Y and Z axes (FIG. 3). The hinged assemblies are illustrated in FIGS. 4 & 5 with pin axes aligned with the X axes of the system (one of each per foot, respectively). Thus, as can be seen in FIG. 4 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2, a rider can tilt either leg toward or away from the sportboard ends. However, since the pin axis of the hinged assembly (ref. “AXIS X” in FIG. 3 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2) is oriented perpendicular to the Z axis, the control means that is necessary to tilt the sportboard about the Z axis is maintained.
In still further embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2, the base that freely rotates about the Y axis is combined with the hinged assembly. Yet to maintain control of the sportboard, a particular orientation of the hinged assembly and binding base must be maintained. The language of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2 (column 4, line 56) includes:                “X-axis and Y-axis rotation can be combined by mounting the Y-axis binding shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 to the top (but preferably not beneath in order to maintain edge or Z-axis control of hinge assembly 42 and board. Alternatively, one binding can be of this Y-axis above X-axis arrangement for edge control, and the other binding in the opposite configuration (X-axis above Y-axis) to provide the effect of a universal ball joint”        
Thus, at least one of the hinged assemblies must be essentially fixed to the sportboard, i.e., not rotate about the Y-axis. Additionally, the hinge pin of the fixed (non-rotating about Y-axis) hinge assembly must be perpendicular to the Z-axis of the sportboard. This is required to enable a rider to tilt the sportboard, and thereby control it for turning and also to maintain balance. Yet, in this configuration the burden of applying the tilting force for balance and turning, is then placed upon only one leg. Still another variation applicable to all of the aforementioned embodiments described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2 includes the freedom to translate roughly along the Z-axis for one of the foot/boot mounting positions.
Notwithstanding, though greater degrees of freedom are provided by the various embodiments of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2, it does not secure preferred ergonomic results. Several configurations do enable foot rotation about a vertical axis—identified as Y-axis in the document. Further freedom is allowed by the hinged assemblies. However, the hinged assemblies provide an imposition upon the rider to either provide the necessary ankle support or to use means to do so, e.g., hard shell boots, or similar. Nevertheless, none of the embodiments of U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,614 B2 maintains the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the axes formed by the respective central foot regions and hip joints.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,097,195 B2 to K. Orr et al introduces a binding system that includes a “base plate”, to which a rider's foot is mounted. The pivoting action allows a more natural alignment of the foot with the leg during riding. The embodiment(s) disclosed suggest that the design of U.S. Pat. No. 7,097,195 B2/Orr allows the bottom of a rider's foot to become essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint. However, also utilized are “compression members” that resist pivoting movement and dampen vibration. When the compression members are engaged, the more natural alignment of the rider's foot (essentially perpendicular to the respective central foot region & hip joint axis) occurs by way of operator induced forces and/or torques. Thus, a restoring force is present when a rider's foot is aligned correctly that will resist the operator's efforts. This has the potential for operator discomfort and/or fatigue.
Additionally, the language of U.S. Pat. No. 7,097,195 B2 (column 4, line 50) includes the following regarding rotation about an essentially vertical axis:                “The base plate 12 is further adapted to mate to a snowboard 11 in a manner in which the base plate 12 is preferably non-rotatable, yet is pivotably movable about a central axis A.”        
Thus, the motion of U.S. Pat. No. 7,097,195 B2 essentially does not include allowing a rider to freely rotate his or her feet while operating the sportboard. So, the embodiment(s) of U.S. Pat. No. 7,097,195 B2 basically does (do) not allow the desired foot rotation or properly maintain the desired foot-leg alignment while in use.
US Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0146588 A1 and US 2005/0029757 A1 by Fiebing illustrate embodiments of an independently rotating binding base that is angled or canted relative to the top planar surface of a snowboard. The angular orientation attempts to address rider ergonomics while providing the advantages of free foot rotation while riding. The embodiments shown in US 2005/0029757 A1 have relatively few components, which is generally advantageous. US 2005/0029757 A1 also allows a rider to freely rotate her or his feet while riding, which enables some of the new types of riding maneuvers mentioned earlier. However, the embodiments revealed only partially address the ergonomic needs of a rider. The angular tilt of the “cant disk” shown in FIGS. 9 & 10 of US 2005/0029757 A1 technically provides an ergonomically correct alignment at a single point on the full arc sector of operation. Put differently, the bottoms of a rider's feet are essentially perpendicular to the axes formed by the respective central foot regions and hip joints—only at one position of the entire sector of rotation. For practical purposes, this amounts to a small sector of use. As a rider rotates his or her foot & leg beyond either side of that ergonomically correct position, the bottom of the rider's foot will become further away from being perpendicular to the axis formed by a respective central foot region and hip joint. Thus the embodiments put forth in US 2003/0146588 A1 and US 2005/0029757 A1 by Fiebing do not address sufficiently the ergonomic requirements identified in this present patent application.
US Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0013165 A1 by Panzeri shows a boot binding system having a foot or boot mount that rotates about a vertical axis. The embodiments shown have relatively few components, which is generally advantageous. The embodiments shown have mating components that make contact via spherical shaped contact surfaces. These features are arranged to allow pivoting in addition to swiveling or shifting axial positions. Thus, embodiments of US 2007/0013165 A1/Panzeri enable a rider's foot to rotate about other axes, angularly adjacent to the vertical axis. This pattern of axial positions forms a zone that is of a conic shape, above (& below) the sportboard. This arrangement is described in paragraph of US 2007/0013165 A1 as “a simple sliding joint”. In paragraph [0022] of the same document the text reads: “This allows the rider's foot to roll relative to the board, which allows greater freedom of movement and may help prevent injuries.” Thus, the mechanism utilized by US 2007/0013165 A1 allows an axis (of rotation) to shift throughout a conic pattern via shifting or sliding from position to position. This motion might be described as traversing arcuately across or about a small zone of a spherical constraining surface with freedom of axial rotation.
The embodiments of US 2007/0013165 A1 also include a “braking means” used as a control feature. The braking means is engaged when the “button” (rotating-sliding part) moves away from the neutral position. The neutral position is one wherein the axis of the button is essentially vertical, i.e., essentially perpendicular to the snowboard. The braking means is essentially engaged at the outer limits of the spherical zone of travel of the button. Paragraph [0023] of US 2007/0013165 A1 discusses the need for, and operation of, a braking means to control the sportboard when performing maneuvers and turning.
That the embodiments of US 2007/0013165 A1 are allowed to rotate is good. Also, the bottom of the rider's foot is allowed to assume a position perpendicular to the axis formed by the respective central foot region and hip joint. That is very desirable. However, with the freedom of sliding about such a spherical surface, a difficulty is incurred. A rider is required to maintain both respective foot-leg orientations throughout the rotational movement. There is some natural tendency of the body structure to follow such an ergonomic orientation. Yet an effort to maintain this alignment is a burden with soft type boots and more so for direct foot-to-binding arrangements. The embodiments disclosed arguably might work better with hard shell (or stiffer) boots; however, that introduces a restriction to the more common types of sportboarding.
There is also a shortcoming with regard to the kinematics of the device and use of the braking means to control the sportboard. To turn the sportboard, a tilting force (moment) must be imparted about the longitudinal axis; this is a well established fact found throughout this art's literature. To do so with the embodiments of US 2007/0013165 A1, a rider's feet must shift or slide from the position they are in to the position where they engage the braking element. That is essentially a mechanical play (a.k.a. tolerance, slop, backlash, etc.) in the system that delays response to the desired movement. Thus, while turning, the embodiments of US 2007/0013165 A1 intrinsically have a delayed turning response.
To conclude regarding US 2007/0013165 A1/Panzeri—if configured correctly, an embodiment may allow a rider's legs to align the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the axes formed by that rider's respective central foot regions and hip joints. However, at best it will allow such a correct orientation to become assumed. The embodiments of US 2007/0013165 A1/Panzeri will not establish or maintain a correct foot to leg posture intrinsically; the turning response is also compromised.
European Patent No. DE 202 20 683 U1 by Jolanta, Mekal & Krzysztof, Mekal shows a binding mounting system that allows individual foot rotation about two axes. From the abstract of DE20220683U1 (as published via European Patent Office):                “A fixture plate (11) is positioned on the surface of the snowboard and has a shoe-attachment linked to it. The attachment swivels on a first pivot axle in relation to the fixture plate, parallel with the snowboard's surface and at right angles to the snowboard's lengthwise axis. A pivot link enables the attachment to swivel on another rotary axle (3) at right angles to a surface holding the shoe-sole. A rotary disc (4) holds the shoe to which it is detachably joined by a pin (5) protruding upwards from the disc and gripped round by sprung rollers (8) with traction-cable (9).”        
In FIG. 1 of DE20220683U1 a longitudinal axis of a sportboard is identified as “X”. Respective axes identified as “Y1” & “Y2” (1/ea. foot position) are shown perpendicular and coplanar to X. The Y axes identify the rotational capability of fixture plate 11. FIG. 2 of DE20220683U1 shows the lower portion of fixture plate 11 attached to the top surface of snowboard 6. The upper portion of fixture plate 11 is attached to a rotary disc 4. Thus, rotary disc 4 is thus free to rotate about a respective Y axis. Additionally, rotary disc 4 is itself free to rotate about an infinite series of axes identified as “Z1, Z1′, Z2, Z2′” in FIG. 1, which remain perpendicular to Y. Thus, as the upper portion of fixture plate 11 rotates, the Z axis for rotary disc 4 sweeps through an arc sector. This arc of Z axes series, free to rotate about respective Y axes, establishes a plane that is essentially coplanar with the X axis, or is at least essentially parallel to the X axis (long. axis of sportboard).
Thus, a rider using an embodiment of DE20220683U1 is able to rotate his or her feet about an axis (Z_) that is essentially perpendicular to the bottom of the foot. Additionally, the rider is able to simultaneously rotate her/his feet about a fixed, horizontal axis (Y) toward or away from the ends of the snowboard. A rider is therefore able to rotate his or her feet from regular to goofy positions and all intermediate positions via the Z axis, which is good. The additional freedom of rotation about the Y axis provides some ergonomic advantages. It allows the foot-leg position to obtain some relief. However, this alignment does not maintain the bottom of a rider's foot essentially perpendicular to the axis formed by/passing through the respective central foot region and hip joint. This is intrinsic to the action of the mechanism employed with DE20220683U1. This becomes apparent when it is considered that (a foot's) Z axis positions are maintained perpendicular to a Y axis and that the Y (horizontal) axis is also fixed. The natural ergonomic orientation of the foot bottom when moving from a goofy to a regular position traces planar regions that only share the Y axis of DE20220683U1 at technically one single position (point) on the arc sector of travel. This restriction is most apparent at the extreme ends of the foot's rotational sector, i.e., at or beyond the typical regular and goofy foot positions. So, the dynamics of DE20220683U1 do not provide the proper ergonomic positioning of a rider's foot-leg though it affords greater flexibility.
Additionally, for preferred stability, the embodiments of DE20220683U1 arguably require more rigid type boots for ankle support given freedom of rotation about the Y axis. Of course this limits the movement between the lower leg and respective foot and therefore restricts the types of riding capable with the embodiments of DE20220683U1. Thus, the embodiments of DE20220683U1 do not satisfy the need to maintain the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the axes formed by the respective central foot regions and hip joints. Additionally, the freedom of movement afforded via the Y axis requires more support for a rider's ankles, either to be maintained by efforts of the rider or by utilizing more rigid boots.
Prior Art—Summary
A review of the prior art in sportboarding shows that greater freedom of movement is desired & advantageous. Recently, more attempts have been made to improve riding by allowing foot rotation and/or pivoting. Additionally, though arguably not well understood, the need for an improved ergonomic connection to sportboards has been recognized. To that end, numerous efforts have been made to satisfy the ergonomic requirements of eliminating fatigue while providing comfort and securing rider, control. As is evident, the variety of embodiments in the prior art show the difficulty in pursuing these objectives. Thus far, it may be argued that the need to maintain the bottoms of a rider's feet essentially perpendicular to the axes formed by the respective central foot regions and hip joints has not yet been understood. However, if this need has been identified, a viable means to accomplish that requirement has not been shown in the prior art. There is therefore a need for a foot/boot binding system that provides rotational freedom in a more ergonomically correct manner.